United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
MERIT REVIEW - AMENDED COMPLAINT
MICHAEL M. MIHM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
proceeding pro se, files an amended complaint alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs at the
Pontiac Correctional Center (“Pontiac”). The case
is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts
the factual allegations as true, liberally construing them in
Plaintiff's favor. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d
645, 649-51 (7th Cir. 2013). However, conclusory statements
and labels are insufficient. Enough facts must be provided to
“state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d
418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)(citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). While the pleading standard does not require
“detailed factual allegations”, it requires
“more than an unadorned,
Wilson v. Ryker, 451 Fed.Appx. 588, 589 (7th Cir.
2011) quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
September 26, 2015, Plaintiff injured his left foot and ankle
on the Pontiac recreational yard. He was taken to the
healthcare unit where Nurse Jack did not examine him, but
told him he was scheduled for x-rays and to be seen by the
physician on September 29, 2015. When Plaintiff was not seen
that day, he questioned Defendant Farris, telling her that he
was in extreme pain. Defendant Farris did not respond.
Plaintiff did not receive any pain medication until 8:00
p.m., and only through the intervention of another officer.
days later, October 1, 2015, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant
Dr. Tilden. Defendant Tilden ordered x-rays and reviewed the
findings, but allegedly did not examine Plaintiff's
foot/ankle. Plaintiff does not reveal the x-ray findings and
does not specify any other care provided by Defendant Tilden.
He complains, however, that he was not provided crutches and
was forced to hobble about, in pain. Plaintiff reported
“extreme pain” to Defendant Medical Technician
Tinsley on several occasions, without result. On October 15,
2015, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Warden Pfister.
October 29, 2015, Plaintiff told Defendant Kennell that Dr.
Tilden had ordered follow-up x-rays and requested to go to
the healthcare unit. Defendant Kennell told Plaintiff he
could not go without a pass which Plaintiff apparently did
not have. Plaintiff, however, referred Defendant to Dr.
Tilden's outpatient notes which generally ordered
“x-rays in two weeks.” Defendant Kennell called
the healthcare unit and was told no x-rays were ordered. He
subsequently refused to allow Plaintiff go to the healthcare
unit. The following day, October 30, 2015, Plaintiff was seen
in the healthcare unit by Mr. Caruso, not a party. Mr. Caruso
told him there was nothing to be done without updated x-rays.
November 16, 2016, Plaintiff was transferred to the Big Muddy
River Correctional Center (“Big Muddy”). He makes
the unrelated claim that he has also not received adequate
treatment at Big Muddy and continues to have pain and loss of
range of motion in the foot/ankle. Here, Plaintiff asserts a
colorable deliberate indifference claim against Defendants
Tilden, Farris and Tinsley.
only claim as to Defendant Kennel is that Defendant would not
let him go to the healthcare unit without a pass. Plaintiff,
however, was not requesting treatment in the healthcare unit,
he claimed that he was to go there for x-rays. When Defendant
Kennell investigated, he was told that no x-rays had been
ordered. Defendant cannot be deliberately indifferent for
failing to allow Plaintiff to report for a test which had not
been scheduled. This, particularly as there is no assertion
that Defendant Kennell had the authority to order x-rays or
also asserts a claim against Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,
alleging that it has a long standing policy or practice of
denying medical treatment to inmates. In support, Plaintiff
alleges that Wexford has not refilled his asthma inhaler.
This claim, however, is not related to the foot/ankle injury
at issue here, and fails to support that an unconstitutional
Wexford policy harmed Plaintiff in relation to the
foot/ankle. If Plaintiff wishes to assert a claim against
Wexford for failing to provide an asthma inhaler, he must
file it is a separate action with responsibility for the
additional filing fee. This is so, because a plaintiff may
join several defendants in one suit only if the claims arose
out of a single transaction and contain a question of fact or
law common to all the defendants. Fed.R. Civ.P. 20(a);
Davis v. Harding, 12-cv-559, 2013 WL 6441027, at *2
(W.D. Wis. Dec. 9, 2013).
claim that Warden Pfister is liable merely because Plaintiff
sent him a letter of complaint, is DISMISSED. Section 1983
liability is premised on personal participation in the
alleged injury and “the alleged mishandling of
grievances by persons who otherwise did not cause or
participate in the underlying conduct states no claim.”
Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff again names John/Jane Doe Defendants without
asserting any specific conduct by Doe Defendants or pleading
anything which would aid in identifying them. The Doe
Defendants are DISMISSED.
case shall proceed against Defendants Tilden, Tinsley and
Farris. Defendants Pfister, Kennell, Wexford, and John/Jane
Doe are DISMISSED.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
case shall proceed solely on the deliberate indifference
claims against Defendants Tilden, Tinsley and Farris,
identified herein. Any claims not identified will not be
included in the case, except in the Court's discretion
upon motion by a party for good cause shown, or by leave of
court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.
Defendants Pfister, Kennell, Wexford, and John/Jane Doe are
Clerk is directed to send to each Defendant pursuant to this
District's internal procedures: 1) a Notice of Lawsuit
and Request for Waiver of Service; 2) a Waiver of Service; 3)
a copy of the Complaint; and 4) a copy of this Order.
3. If a
Defendant fails to sign and return a Waiver of Service to the
Clerk within 30 days after the Waiver is sent, the Court will
take appropriate steps to effect formal service on that
Defendant and will require that Defendant pay the full costs
of formal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(d)(2). If a Defendant no longer works at the address
provided by Plaintiff, the entity for which Defendant worked
at the time identified in the Complaint shall provide to the
Clerk Defendant's current work address, or, if not known,
Defendant's forwarding address. This information will be
used only for purposes of ...